Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

Originally Posted by Belthazor

You mean hypothesis. Theory in science, as you know, means no such thing.

My point is, its just more opinion and guess to support a larger opinino or guess.

The form has gone like this.
Evolution is responsible for the creation of all the variety we see today, from a single simple ancestor.
support offered.. point to equally unsupported theory hypothesis in field X. Like geology and fossils.
support offered.. point ot equally unsupported theory about eye evolution.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Examples of different stages of eye development in animals alive today.

That is not really support, because it doesn't even imply that those "assumed stages" are evolutionary related.
There are all sorts of features that evolution recognizes as similar, but not as on the same evolutionary tract.
Second, it isn't enough to find structures in nature and place them in an order of simple to complex, actual relation must be shown and that is a genetic question
Third, to make things simple to exemplify how ridiculous it sounds, take any two and think of what genetic changes would be required to go from one to another, and place that against
the rate of evolution that we observe. (that is micro evolution).
*edit*
Basically evolutionists are guilty of over simplification. This has been true since the day they billed the cell as "the simple cell". In this way, the evolutionist appeals to absurd things as though they are simple and common sense occurrences. Like the eye example.https://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve...ian-mechanisms
Let me draw your attention to the portion of the link titled "problems with classification". The link is offered as support for the oversimplification, accusation.

Finally as I read, there seems to be some contradiction in the papers as to if the eye evolved from a common ancestor or if it appeared separately on some 40 different occasions.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

We can't replicate an environment on a scale of earth to test it though we have shown human influence can change a given species dramatically. Like cabbage and kohlrabi came from the same ancestor plants directed with human influence. If we chose to, those plants in the future would look nothing like todays.

Maybe, or maybe they would look pretty much like what we have them now.. unless you are talking about high level genetic engeiring where we take DNA from other things and inject it in them
In which case you would have to show some way for evolution to do the same thing. So how would DNA from a fish get into a potato (or some such).

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Please show this while not defying known laws of physics.

Or show evolution defies a known law of physics.

Otherwise this is a bit of a "nuh uh" response

First, the formation of a right angle through errosion does not violate any law of physics. It may be atypical, but it is most certainly possible.
All that would be needed is material that errods slower in some areas than others, so as to end up at some point with a right angle. Irrosion is about removing material.
So the material slowly evolves shapes. Those right angles just evolved naturally. (tada.. I have offered as much as evolution has).

Remember this is a parellel. It works because you find this absurd, but your inconsistent in your skepticism.
you have derived intent by a few square blocks stacked on top of each other, but not from an actual LANGUAGE and INSTRUCTIONS and BLUE PRINTS to build biological devises that we don't even fully understand.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Thousands of different kinds/types/species of beetles, each exploiting different aspects of the environment. IOW, each species adapted to the environment in different ways.

That is another assumption of evolution, not an observation.
your projecting relationship without showing them.

Look bottom line, if you find two things that share 95 percent of the same DNA. You have to show a viable path for that DNA to change in order to justifiably claim that it is POSSIBLE. Then you have to show that Evolution has selective powers powerful enough and mutation powers power full enough to account for the changes.

The magic wand of evolution is that some small thing changes, and then it is "selected" with no feasible mechanisms or pressure to select that aspect. There is zero consideration for irreducibly complex systems (IE several things that would have to be evolved at the same time).

Yes this is would be a daunting task, but when you forward ridiculous ideas, it tends to be daunting to prove them. (like the pyramids example) only you have a whole lot further to go. I may as well start throwing hollow earth hypothesis into my pyramid example, as you have thrown in other things as support).

So here is the point, it is not a safe assumption that one can take one complex system and through gradual change make it into another complex system, while maintaining functionality.
If we took a bridge, you couldn't slowly change it into an air plane. That takes a complete redesign. Evolution proposes much more ridiculous ideas. The error I am trying to highlight, is that it isn't "simple" rather it is so complex, the claim is absurd and should be rejected.
As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

****
In regards to things not addressed.
Sorry, I have just missed them. I guess if the conversation swings back around to them.. I will attempt to address them again. I apologize. I think all your points deserve a response.

Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

My point is, its just more opinion and guess to support a larger opinino or guess.

Yes I know, but what you are referring to is a hypothesis. Theory is quite different:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory
"noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution."

The form has gone like this.
Evolution is responsible for the creation of all the variety we see today, from a single simple ancestor.
support offered.. point to equally unsupported theory hypothesis in field X. Like geology and fossils.
support offered.. point ot equally unsupported theory about eye evolution.

The plethora of life we enjoy today is different than the past (think dinosaurs for instance). Either this happened by natural means (referred to commonly as evolution) or it happened by supernatural means (which would mean God had to personally create each of thousands of different beetles. This also would not square with Noah and the Ark as only two tigers or hummingbirds wouldn't show the varied species of each we see today).

You have a point though. Can we trust geology?https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html
"As radioactive Parent atoms decay to stable daughter atoms (as uranium decays to lead) each disintegration results in one more atom of the daughter than was initially present and one less atom of the parent. The probability of a parent atom decaying in a fixed period of time is always the same for all atoms of that type regardless of temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions. This probability of decay is the decay constant. The time required for one-half of any original number of parent atoms to decay is the half-life, which is related to the decay constant by a simple mathematical formula.
All rocks and minerals contain long-lived radioactive elements that were incorporated into Earth when the Solar System formed. These radioactive elements constitute independent clocks that allow geologists to determine the age of the rocks in which they occur. The radioactive parent elements used to date rocks and minerals are:"

https://www.zmescience.com/science/g...-of-the-earth/
"This age has been confirmed by hundreds of other subsequent determinations, both from terrestrial samples and other meteorites. The meteorite samples show a spread from 4.53 to 4.58 billion years, and this gap is interpreted as the formation of the solar nebula and collapse into the solar disk that formed the Sun and the Earth.
Plate tectonics continuously recycles the Earth’s crust, and there aren’t any primordial rocks still available on the surface (or if there are, we haven’t found them yet). Zircon minerals showed us that the Earth is at least 4.374 billion years old, but it could definitely be older."

That is not really support, because it doesn't even imply that those "assumed stages" are evolutionary related.There are all sorts of features that evolution recognizes as similar, but not as on the same evolutionary tract.

Basically evolutionists are guilty of over simplification. This has been true since the day they billed the cell as "the simple cell". In this way, the evolutionist appeals to absurd things as though they are simple and common sense occurrences. Like the eye example.https://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve...ian-mechanisms
Let me draw your attention to the portion of the link titled "problems with classification". The link is offered as support for the oversimplification, accusation.

First, the formation of a right angle through errosion does not violate any law of physics. It may be atypical, but it is most certainly possible.
All that would be needed is material that errods slower in some areas than others, so as to end up at some point with a right angle. Irrosion is about removing material.
So the material slowly evolves shapes. Those right angles just evolved naturally. (tada.. I have offered as much as evolution has).

BIG fail !!

You said you:
"could just as easily show you haw the pyramids could have formed in six easy steps.

You have attempted to show a (as in one) rt angle might form (though you fail to show it actually happens).
Now all you have to do (in six easy steps) is show how:
you will get rectangle and square blocks of rock, weighing multiple tons, eroded in one location
then transported miles (with no further erosion)
and end up in a particular order, that is a pyramid shape (with rooms, stairs, shafts, etc).

and do this without violating known physical law.

The scientific studies of biology and geology support evolution. What scientific theories back up your claim?

So while I reject evolution as a valid theory personally, that wasn't really the point. The point was to take evolution as it is described and show this specific limitation in its ability. So basically granting it the power to manipulate genes and population development on the levels that evolution says, are not the same tools that would effect selecting logic.

Yet we see varying degrees of access to logic in animals. Limited/none in "simple" (single cell) life forms, more in "higher" (more complex/multi cell/brain/etc) life forms. Exactly what one would expect from a natural progression of life.

Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

My point, is that to support a position you need to offer facts, not other hypothesis and theories.
My objection is that the facts don't support the idea of evolution (IE common decent)

Originally Posted by Belthazor

The plethora of life we enjoy today is different than the past (think dinosaurs for instance). Either this happened by natural means (referred to commonly as evolution) or it happened by supernatural means (which would mean God had to personally create each of thousands of different beetles. This also would not square with Noah and the Ark as only two tigers or hummingbirds wouldn't show the varied species of each we see today).

I don't see any reason to accept your objection on this point.
I also don't see how your objection is consistent with your current belief in evolution. I mean, if you believe from goo to you by way of the zoo, I don't see why diversity from noahs ark would be "unbelievable".. or even stretch the imagination.

-inbreeding-
You brought this up as a problem, but I don't see why it would be a problem. I mean, if you start from a PERFECT DNA, there isn't any broken traits to be inherited. As the DNA gets damaged and bad traits start to show up.. then it would be a problem, but you seem to be assuming an imperfect start in your criticism.
Also, as I understand it, we are traced DNA wise to just two people. .. so..https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/do...scientifically
The above link discusses exactly your objection, but doesn't rule out it as a possibility.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

You have a point though. Can we trust geology?

I don't understand the point of this support.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

What sources do we have available to show this incorrect?

I appreciate that you are establishing an old earth, but we are talking about evolution, and the support you have offered is not relevant to evolution, except to attempt to lay the ground work that there is in fact enough time for evolution to occur.
In that case, it isn't the age of the earth that matters, but the age of the earth when life could possibly exist. (IE after the earth cools and what not).

*Objection*
The problme is, the data is cherry picked. So the way they figure out what is related by DNA is to compare and see what is similar or th same. The more different the less related type thing.
The reason the data is cherry picked, is because one part of the data will establish one DNA tree of relations, and another part will establish a contradictory tree.
So while you can create a coherent tree from PART of the DNA, no such tree is consistent with all the DNA. Which disproves evloution, not establish it.

The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.3

You said you:
"could just as easily show you haw the pyramids could have formed in six easy steps.

Yes, it is a parody argument. I won't waste your time with it further.
I hadn't tried to explain all 6 steps and that claim itself was hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

This confuses me?
Are you saying all beetles are separate, distinct insects?

No, and I'm sure I don't know. Species is a construct we project onto nature.. so.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Hmmm, insects vastly larger in the past than today! Sounds like life on Earth does not have to be static.

The size of an animal or insect is not relevant unless it is shown to be related to some significant DNA change that contradicts a static animal.
After all.. it was bigger, but it was the same insect only 65 miiiiilllllliiiioooon years ago.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Yet we see varying degrees of access to logic in animals. Limited/none in "simple" (single cell) life forms, more in "higher" (more complex/multi cell/brain/etc) life forms. Exactly what one would expect from a natural progression of life.

Not at all. As they are not shown to be evolutionaryly connected in any way.

There is a concept in evolution, that basically says things that are similar are related.. unless they aren't.
Then the two similar things just so happen to evolve sepeartly, to be.. well.. the same.

Like the eye example, the reason the #40 keeps coming up, is because there isn't an evolutionary trail of eye development. there are traits that are deemed similar, but found to be unrelated in the evolutionary tree.. so then they are said to evolve seperatly.

Which is why I keep trying to explain to you that it is ridiculous. Appealing to blind chance to create the same thing multiple times.. defies logic.

Evolution is supported by other unrelated sciences (geology for instance) which are usually theories because it is just hard to be 100% of anything.
I am not aware of a science that has refuted species coming into being by natural means (evolution).

I don't see any reason to accept your objection on this point.
I also don't see how your objection is consistent with your current belief in evolution. I mean, if you believe from goo to you by way of the zoo,

Again, evolution theory speaks to changes in existing life over time, not the origins of life. It is not an arbitrary starting point. It starts with observing plants/animals that lived in the past thru current life.
Creationism is not incompatible with evolution, and actually necessary unless God were to create each species of beetle in each of it's habitats.

I don't see why diversity from noahs ark would be "unbelievable".. or even stretch the imagination.

Other than the issue of inbreeding, I can see life changing/evolving with different environments starting from the ark. It is you saying "no, plants/animals don't change at all. Each new species is directly created by God.".

-inbreeding-
You brought this up as a problem, but I don't see why it would be a problem. I mean, if you start from a PERFECT DNA, there isn't any broken traits to be inherited. As the DNA gets damaged and bad traits start to show up..

"Another reason, to survive and thrive, a species needs a diversity of genes. The children of two people are obviously siblings and the product of those unions would be cousins. Children born to parents who are closely related genetically, are more likely to suffer from physical, mental, or developmental disabilities."

Which agrees with my point, and further:

"Although there may not have been a literal Adam and Eve, our species has a “genetic Adam” and a “mitochondrial Eve.” Our genetic Adam was a man who’s Y-chromosome has been passed down in an unbroken chain starting in Africa, approx. 125,000 to 156,000 years ago. Although some other studies offer different time frames, the results are the same.

He wasn’t the first man on Earth, but the one who was lucky enough to have his genetic information passed on up until the present today. Rather than being the first female of a species, our “mitochondrial Eve” is the first female to pass on her mitochondrial DNA across generations of females, leading up to today."

You will note the boldened part above. So not the first human, just related to humans currently alive today. AND how did we learn this? Not thru RNA, but thru DNA.
I will note you are accepting DNA here, as evidence of past ancestry just as I have been saying

I appreciate that you are establishing an old earth, but we are talking about evolution, and the support you have offered is not relevant to evolution, except to attempt to lay the ground work that there is in fact enough time for evolution to occur.
In that case, it isn't the age of the earth that matters, but the age of the earth when life could possibly exist. (IE after the earth cools and what not).

At the moment, no, old or young doesn't matter much. Earlier life thru current life is more important at the moment. I more want to show that life as a whole on earth is not static.

I don't see the time frame affecting evolution at all. For a time, earth had simple life only. Now we have much more diversity. How long it took doesn't matter as much as that it happened.

I don't find "irreducible complexity" very satisfying at all. We see current life with many, many stages of eye development. To say it "couldn't happen that way" when we can see the evidence of it in today's life strikes me odd?

The size of an animal or insect is not relevant unless it is shown to be related to some significant DNA change that contradicts a static animal.
After all.. it was bigger, but it was the same insect only 65 miiiiilllllliiiioooon years ago.

The point was, in the past, insects were incredibly much bigger to the extreme compared to today. Insects don't have lungs. they breathe thru their skin. Earth had a much higher oxygen content in the past which allowed insects to grow larger (and still get oxygen to inner tissue) than today.
IOW, insects adapted to the changing environment (evolution or the natural progression of life).
Again, the alternative, is an unnatural explanation where God intervened in speciation as the environment changed over time.

There is a concept in evolution, that basically says things that are similar are related.. unless they aren't.
Then the two similar things just so happen to evolve sepeartly, to be.. well.. the same.

When I was young my best friend complained about the phrase "same difference", because he said it was basically saying "same but different".
The opposite of what the phrase means so of course it seemed illogical to him, but he refused to hear:

"same difference" meant the SAME result in each example"
but,
"same but different" is the exact opposite of the idea being expressed.

Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

Actually, common decent is not supported. There is nothing but a huge hole of speculation.
You may be using evolution in some other sense.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Again, evolution theory speaks to changes in existing life over time, not the origins of life. It is not an arbitrary starting point. It starts with observing plants/animals that lived in the past thru current life.
Creationism is not incompatible with evolution, and actually necessary unless God were to create each species of beetle in each of it's habitats.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Other than the issue of inbreeding, I can see life changing/evolving with different environments starting from the ark. It is you saying "no, plants/animals don't change at all. Each new species is directly created by God.".

Well, that isn't exactly what I mean when I say that animals are static. That doesn't mean that there isn't any change at all. I mean, I have argued that they are degrading... so that isn't exactly "no change".
Also, I do not in any way intend to say that micro evolution occurs. Which again is change.
However animals don't show in the record a history of changing into other animals. What is in the record is stasis of animals. IE they stay their kind. Dogs are still dogs, turtles stay turtles.
No new major systems or body types or anything emerging from some preexisting other animal.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Why/how would "perfect" DNA get damaged?

Why wouldn't it? I didn't say it was magic DNA.
but we know DNA is a building blue print, and it gets copied, and damaged.
I don't see what would indicate that the original blue print, lacking any defect, would be immune to damage at all.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Your belief is not warranted per your source:

Why not? The link sees DNA with damage and notes that it COULD produce problems, and it raises the chances.
But it stands as a weak objection at best. I could just appeal to chance and say it just so happen to not be a problem.
Given that your appealing to chance in a far more absurd level.. this would be reasonable by comparison.

Originally Posted by link

So these numbers aren’t absolute. “The evidence for the short-term effects of low genetic diversity is very strong,” Dr. Stephens said, “but all these things are probabilistic. There are stories of incredible journeys back from the brink – anything is possible.”

In other words, it isn't some genetic law that inbreeding MUST destroy gene pools.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

I will note you are accepting DNA here, as evidence of past ancestry just as I have been saying

It is one thing to connect the DNA of people and say that they are related.
It is another to cherry pick one DNA aspect, that links to snails, and say we are thus related.
Especially when The DNA evidence is contradictory to ANY common descent.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

I don't see the time frame affecting evolution at all. For a time, earth had simple life only. Now we have much more diversity. How long it took doesn't matter as much as that it happened.

Actually, time does matter. Life could not have evolved from "simple" (a misnomer) to the diversity that we have now in 1million years.
Evolution simply doesn't have the power to produce those results.
If you propose a theory of connection that would require 50 trillion years of evolution, then you have failed.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

I don't find "irreducible complexity" very satisfying at all. We see current life with different many, many stages of eye development. To say it "couldn't happen that way" when we can see the evidence of it in today's life strikes me odd.

But your not seeing the evidence, you are assuming it, and further you are assuming it against the evidence.
In other words, you say the stages of the eye development, but that is not true.
They are different kinds of eyes most of which are UNRELATED by any evolutionary chain.
You have then taken them, put them into some kind of filing order, and then called them "stages". It is simply false, and not supported by any evidence at all.
It is a fairy tail. Trying to pass the absurd as reasonable with a lie (for those who know) and through ignorance for those who don't.

In order for you to properly and correctly call them "stages of development" YOU MUST show that they are evolutionary connected.
So .. challenge to support. If you plan on appealing to it further.
*note* the reason you have the idea that they are connected, is because they (evolutionists) have linked them in form. We do know now that they are not linked by DNA. Hence the 40 supposed instances of sight evolving separately.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

The point was, in the past, insects were incredibly much bigger to the extreme compared to today. Insects don't have lungs. they breathe thru their skin. Earth had a much higher oxygen content in the past which allowed insects to grow larger (and still get oxygen to inner tissue) than today.
IOW, insects adapted to the changing environment (evolution or the natural progression of life).
Again, the alternative, is an unnatural explanation where God intervened in speciation as the environment changed over time.

That is a straw-man alternative.
Also, you haven't shown that the insects DNA was any different, and in fact they don't need to be any different. We see many animals that grow to fit their cage.

So your just guessing and speculating that this stuff supports common descent.

----------------------
Summary

1) The eye has not been shown nor is there any evidence to suggest that eyes are the product of common descent.
The evidence of different kinds of eyes, as being "stages" on some path, is demonstrably false.
2) The contradictory "tree of life" from DNA, disproves common descent and shows the fundamental prediction of evolution false. (IE a defeater)
3) Inbreeding as an objection to an original couple is shown to be a weak objection, not necessarily disproving. Especially given the challenges to the basic assumptions that go into the Inbreeding argument.
4) Any Idea that I am objecting to any change or change at all (IE micro evolution) should be dispelled.
5) The only thing that I haven't done, is to really get across how absurd the idea is for one animal to change into another very different animal. This is due to an oversimplification by those that support common descent. (IE as though it were just a given that one kind of eye changing into anther is not orders above miraculous).
Any effort to quantify the changes necessary and any evidence that evolution (micro) is able to bridge that gap in the time frame allowed... would be the first step in supporting the assertion that something (in this case the eye) evolved at all.

6) .. and most importantly ... we aren't moving any closer to showing a mechanism by which evolution could select proper thoughts over improper thoughts so as to select right thinking. So far all the mechanisms discussed, like DNA and ancestry etc. Have circled around survival only.

Well, that isn't exactly what I mean when I say that animals are static. That doesn't mean that there isn't any change at all. I mean, I have argued that they are degrading... so that isn't exactly "no change".
Also, I do not in any way intend to say that micro evolution occurs. Which again is change.

However animals don't show in the record a history of changing into other animals. What is in the record is stasis of animals. IE they stay their kind. Dogs are still dogs, turtles stay turtles.
No new major systems or body types or anything emerging from some preexisting other animal.

Why not? The link sees DNA with damage and notes that it COULD produce problems, and it raises the chances.

That would be a very careful reading of that article, it's a bit past "could":

"Could two people literally populate the Earth? It’s highly unlikely."

" For worldwide expansion to be successful, 2,250 individuals would be needed to make the journey northward, into Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, while 10,000 were thought to remain back in Africa.

"This is a conservative estimate. Population geneticists came upon it by looking at population sizes and calculating back reasonable estimates on mutations rates and other genetic factors, to see how small a population could exist and still allow for the high level of genetic variation that we see today within the human species."

"An incest taboo is universal the world over and for good reason. One study looking at Czechoslovakian children born between 1933 and 1970, found that almost 40% of those who had parents who were first-degree relatives carried some type of severe handicap. Such inherited diseases are rare and usually occur when two copies of the same gene are passed on by a person’s parents."

"Humans actually select a mate partly based on how dissimilar the other person’s genes are. We are naturally attracted to those who have different immune genes than we ourselves carry."

"Dr. Philip Stephens from Durham University in Australia told the BBC that 50 individuals could keep the human race going, without falling into the founder effect.
500 would offer a diverse enough gene pool to allow offspring to adapt to new situations or a novel environment. And 500-5,000 would be needed to cover for random losses when genes are passed down from one generation to the next."

Actually, time does matter. Life could not have evolved from "simple" (a misnomer) to the diversity that we have now in 1million years.
Evolution simply doesn't have the power to produce those results.

Not at all. Since evolution is just saying this happened by natural means. It takes as long as it takes.
That diversity of life exists does in fact exist, it came to be, by either natural or supernatural means.
If it was natural, the time frame matters not at all, because it happened.

You keep telling me life could not have changed by natural means (evolution), but I would need more support to be convinced.

But your not seeing the evidence, you are assuming it, and further you are assuming it against the evidence.
In other words, you say the stages of the eye development, but that is not true.
They are different kinds of eyes most of which are UNRELATED by any evolutionary chain.

Here you are basically saying we must see a hummingbird turn into an eagle or they can not be related which is just not an argument from evolution.

In order for you to properly and correctly call them "stages of development" YOU MUST show that they are evolutionary connected.
So .. challenge to support. If you plan on appealing to it further.
*note* the reason you have the idea that they are connected, is because they (evolutionists) have linked them in form. We do know now that they are not linked by DNA. Hence the 40 supposed instances of sight evolving separately.

What are "40 supposed instances of sight evolving separately"???
Please support that DNA is evidence that life on Earth "are not linked by DNA"

1) The eye has not been shown nor is there any evidence to suggest that eyes are the product of common descent.
The evidence of different kinds of eyes, as being "stages" on some path, is demonstrably false.
2) The contradictory "tree of life" from DNA, disproves common descent and shows the fundamental prediction of evolution false. (IE a defeater)
3) Inbreeding as an objection to an original couple is shown to be a weak objection, not necessarily disproving. Especially given the challenges to the basic assumptions that go into the Inbreeding argument.
4) Any Idea that I am objecting to any change or change at all (IE micro evolution) should be dispelled.
5) The only thing that I haven't done, is to really get across how absurd the idea is for one animal to change into another very different animal. This is due to an oversimplification by those that support common descent. (IE as though it were just a given that one kind of eye changing into anther is not orders above miraculous).
Any effort to quantify the changes necessary and any evidence that evolution (micro) is able to bridge that gap in the time frame allowed... would be the first step in supporting the assertion that something (in this case the eye) evolved at all.

6) .. and most importantly ... we aren't moving any closer to showing a mechanism by which evolution could select proper thoughts over improper thoughts so as to select right thinking. So far all the mechanisms discussed, like DNA and ancestry etc. Have circled around survival only.

1. I made no such claim. The stages of eyes from barely being able to sense light to seeing very clearly over long distances shows how they have changed/developed/evolved over time.
2. Support please.
3. Your own support for this states that virtually all societies ban incest for the same/similar reasons.
4. Ok, I appreciate this.
5. Sounds like survival in a eat or be eaten world. There is nothing surprising here...
6. So, if I/we can not say for sure how the complete "mechanics" how sun works it may not be shining after all?
6a. Proper thoughts will generally yield better results (reproducing). Improper thoughts will generally yields less number of positive results (not reproducing).
6b. Survival is kinda necessary or there would be nothing to talk about. It's all about living long enough to reproduce/reproducing.

Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

Oh no..I mean agreed. common descent is only supported by biology. I more meant geology shows the Earth and life changing over time (for instance).

This is a repeat of your original claim of this, and it is still not supported.
The counter is that the geology/archeology shows life staying static, and establishes no relation at all.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Agreed, the fossil record will necessarily be limited.

Common ancestry shows what you are asking.

This is another repeated claim, with no supporting evidence.
The counter is that ancestry claims cherry pick data to establish a "tree of life" and there exists contradictory trees of relations.
Which is a defeater to evolution.
Link and quotes were provided.. see https://evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_...e_of_life_p_1/

---New issues--

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Ok, I sill consider this progress.

Would you define "micro evolution" for me so I am sure what you mean?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

That would be a very careful reading of that article, it's a bit past "could":

I think it is intellectually dishonest to accept appeals to chance that are inconcievable in its measure, and then reject an appeal to chance that is orders more likely.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Why?
What is a "DNA aspect"?
What are the limits we can trust DNA as evidence?

This is the DNA aspects I am talking about.

Originally Posted by link

The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.3

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Not at all. Since evolution is just saying this happened by natural means. It takes as long as it takes.
That diversity of life exists does in fact exist, it came to be, by either natural or supernatural means.
If it was natural, the time frame matters not at all, because it happened.

You keep telling me life could not have changed by natural means (evolution), but I would need more support to be convinced.

Your begging the question. I mean, yes if evolution were true.. then obviously it occured in the time whatever it was.
However, if you are looking at the evidence and making a prediction, one would not expect evolution to occure in the time that it has.
This is why the Cambrean explosion is a problem for evolution. There is no mechanism in evolution that allows for, or can drive that fast and that vast amout of diversity.
That is the substance of the evidence against evolution, that it is not capable of producing complex new systems. Random chance mutations simply isn't powerful enough to create anything more than statistial information, and a much higher order is needed to edit the building blocks of life to create new biological systems.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Here you are basically saying we must see a hummingbird turn into an eagle or they can not be related which is just not an argument from evolution.

Well.. that would be actual evidence of evolution.
However what I am saying is that if you are going to say that two things are related, you have the burden of creating a consistent evolutionary chain between them.
Non exists between any kinds of animals. So evolution stands as false.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

What are "40 supposed instances of sight evolving separately"???
Please support that DNA is evidence that life on Earth "are not linked by DNA"

different kinds of eyes have independently evolved at least 40 times in animals,

You may not be trying to link them by form, but the evidence you are pointing to is doing that.
The stages of the eye are a line of evidence that links by form, not by DNA.

The idea of "parralel evolution" is to say that two similar structures are not related.
So, again, similarities imply relation.. until it doesn't.
You should consider the idea of parralel evolution, as devistating to the theory.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

The point I was making was life was adapting (evolving)to different levels of oxygen which is just one of countless pressures/opportunities for life on the planet.

Your just assuming a change.

---------------------

Originally Posted by Belthazor

1. I made no such claim. The stages of eyes from barely being able to sense light to seeing very clearly over long distances shows how they have changed/developed/evolved over time.
2. Support please.
3. Your own support for this states that virtually all societies ban incest for the same/similar reasons.
4. Ok, I appreciate this.
5. Sounds like survival in a eat or be eaten world. There is nothing surprising here...
6. So, if I/we can not say for sure how the complete "mechanics" how sun works it may not be shining after all?
6a. Proper thoughts will generally yield better results (reproducing). Improper thoughts will generally yields less number of positive results (not reproducing).
6b. Survival is kinda necessary or there would be nothing to talk about. It's all about living long enough to reproduce/reproducing.

This is kinda helpful I think. Not to make the arguments, but to highlight what points are being addressed.

1)Eyes simply are not related in the way that you have used as support even by evolution.
2) Contradictory trees of life, supported in links above.
3) Inbreeding is a weak objectionfor reasons stated.
A) Inconsistencies in appealing to chance, then objecting to a possible appeal to chance.
B) Inbreeding is not game breaking it it's ability to hinder survival.
4) Agreeent! yay
5) The level of complexity and diversity, is severly understated and minimized. This is due to our lack of quantifiying any changes you propose are linked.
6) It is not established that improper thoughts will generally yield less number of positive results. If chance is choosing, it is more likely that an improper thought that leads to positive results will occur, because there are infinatly more improper thoughts that would lead to positive results compared to the ONE proper thought.